KEYWORD: Guideline F
DIGEST: The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a
favorable security clearance decision.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 08-04804.a1
DATE: 04/13/2009
DATE: April 13, 2009
In Re:
-----
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 08-04804
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On July 23, 2008, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
2
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a decision on the written record.  After considering the
record, Administrative Judge Mark W. Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable
decision. 
Applicant’s appeal brief discuses various matters not contained in the record. The Board
cannot consider new evidence on appeal.  See Directive E3.1.29.
Applicant’s brief does not discuss the Judge’s decision but raises evidence of mitigation.  The
presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security
clearance decision.  As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide
whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007).  A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing
of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient
to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). 
   
The Board does not review a case de novo.  After reviewing the record, the Board concludes
that the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.
Order
The decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan            
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairman, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields                 
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody                    
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board